Subject: [no subject]
Ah. This is a key point that has not come up in the conversation before. Is this really the right way to go? If I have a designator that references something that changes over the course of the evaluation, I now have to keep its value constant? What about if I cache a policy over many evaluations? Hrm. Originally, this work item was proposed as nothing more than syntactic sugar. It was supposed to help clean up policies. In our discussion of recursive references, I pointed out that the proposal is actually changing the meaning of the "condition" logic, so it's more than just a superficial change. This latest idea, that a Definition remains constant throughout an evaluation, further changes what the logic in a Rule means. Now, as a policy writer, I have to think about whether some designator or function may produce different values, and therefore whether it's safe to use them in a Def/Ref. This makes me really nervous. I would not support this approach without some very careful language and thought about what this feature actually does to the PDP. As an aside, I've seen a number of proposals lately that specify schema changes but don't have language to explain the semantics of the proposal. When I say that I haven't seen a full proposal for item #7, it's partially because I haven't seen any language discussing how the feature is used. Let's get this nailed down before we proceed. seth To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xacml/members/leave_workgro up.php.